Martin Champoux
Drummond, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268 , which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead . This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”.”
“When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems.”
“In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here.”
“We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good.”
“For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 449 lines we hold for Martin Champoux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 9.
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his speech and for his passion on this particular topic. I know he is a strong advocate for cracking down a little more on repeat offenders. There are a number of ways to achieve this. We in the Bloc Québécois generally agree on the substance, but we may disagree or have other ideas about the form. We have proposed various measures in the past. I would like to discuss some of them with my colleague. We proposed creating an organized crime registry. We also proposed guidelines for using the Jordan decision for serious crimes. I think these are worthwhile measures. Another issue is the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. It is just wrong that comments inciting violence are tolerated because religious speech is protected under the Criminal Code.”
“Elected in 2004, when the Bloc Québécois had 52 members elected, Mr. Dryden served briefly as a minister under Paul Martin before ending up on the opposition benches until 2011. He was an affable, intelligent man. He was liked by everyone, which is no small feat in today's political climate. His fight to protect young athletes from the scourge of concussions is admirable, and we have a collective responsibility to carry on his legacy. For his work in the House, for his commitment to protecting our young athletes, for the Stanley Cups he delivered to Canadiens fans and on behalf of all young people standing in goal on a winter's night in the 1970s, allow me, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to simply say thank you, Mr. Dryden.”
“He was the one who earned some of our Stanley Cups, who made the Canadiens unbeatable. Is there any more beautiful tribute to someone than to say that he was the one with whom thousands and thousands of children identify? Everyone wants to be Montreal Canadiens number 29. For anyone who loved hockey, Guy Lafleur and Ken Dryden were the ones who thrilled Quebec the most. For at least two generations of Quebeckers, Ken Dryden was the embodiment of our youth. He, like others before him and others after him, explains our passion for hockey and the importance of the Montreal Canadiens to our identity. We offer our deepest condolences to his family, and on behalf of all fans of our national sport, we express our gratitude for the achievements he earned for us. I would be remiss if I did not mention his public service.”
“He is alone; he shoots—He scores!” That is what all the young boys would shout on the street—that, and the familiar and endless calls of “Car!” The goal would be shoved to the side of the road. They would wait for the car to pass, put the goal back in place and carry on. Then we heard, “Guy Lafleur takes the puck back; he is in the zone, and—Save by Ken Dryden! Ken Dryden with a spectacular save.” Every kid scoring goals on the streets of Quebec, they were all Guy Lafleurs. Every kid making saves in every neighbourhood, all the goalies, they were Ken Drydens. From Chibougamau to Venise‑en‑Québec, from Shawinigan to Drummondville, “Save by Ken Dryden!” He was the best goalie in the world. We were too when we stopped a frozen tennis ball while playing smack in the middle of the road on a January night.”
“Mr. Speaker, my childhood memories, like the childhood memories of hundreds of thousands of Quebecker children, are filled with winter nights on streets where the hard snow had made a perfect surface for us to play hockey. Sometimes three-on-three, sometimes four-on-four, one goalie, and two or three players on offence. There was no one on defence when we played in the street. At that time, it did not cost an arm and a leg to play hockey. There was no need to rent a skating rink and no need for expensive equipment. It was enough to have a pompom toque, mittens, a wooden stick that was not even curved, and a head full of dreams. “Guy Lafleur picks up the puck.”
“Vigneault's superbly poetic words speak directly to the heart: All we have left, when all's said and done Is the time we've taken to love one another The care we have shown, the seeds we have sown Will bloom in us forever In the garden to which time has flown People, o my people, it is your turn To receive the love you've earned [ Members sang ]”
“Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1975, the celebrated poet of Natashquan chose the feast day of Saint-Jean, soon to become our national holiday, to bestow upon Quebeckers a priceless treasure: a song they could all call their very own. For 50 years now, whenever we celebrate a loved one's birthday around the dinner table or out at a restaurant with friends and family, we all raise our voices to sing Gilles Vigneault's lyrics featuring the name of the birthday boy or girl. Nowhere else in the world are homes filled with the sound of this extraordinary song written to celebrate Quebec, a song we now use to celebrate each and every Quebecker.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her speech and for her strong convictions on this issue. We will not always agree on all the measures to be taken or on the entirety of a bill. However, it seems to me that in the case of this bill, everyone had pretty much agreed to finish with this measure, which has already been studied several times in previous versions of similar bills from the Senate and the House. Does my colleague not think that we have much more pressing issues to deal with besides bills that we already debated in the previous Parliament? Should we not instead focus on everything that is wrong with the immigration department and try to do everything we can to fix it?”
“The result is that, right now, families of temporary foreign workers, who are well integrated back home in Drummondville, are not able to get their permits renewed because of these measures. All of these measures are very confusing. The responsibility sharing between Quebec and Ottawa is not working very well. I would like to know what my colleague thinks we should do about this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean on his speech. Everyone who knows him and has had the opportunity to work with him knows that he is an extremely thorough individual who is capable of working across party lines in the best interests of the issues that he is working on. Immigration is something that is very important to him. After the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 's speech, I asked her a question about the temporary foreign worker program. My colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean made the point that the government has implemented one-size-fits-all measures across Canada without taking into account regional realities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has held the important and critical position of immigration minister for over a month now. Quebec is experiencing major issues, including with the temporary foreign worker program, and the federal government has been dragging its feet for a long time. Today, I am very pleased to see Bill C-3 has been introduced. It is a good bill, which we were in favour of during the previous Parliament. However, on the minister's list of priorities, can we know when Quebec and Canadian businesses will have reassurances about the fact that they are currently having to let go of employees who have become part of the company and the community, because the federal government has been dragging its feet on this issue?”
“Even the Auditor General said in her report that she would not be adding any further recommendations because the government has been unable to implement the ones it has already received. Let us be serious. What does the member think are the chances that the government will be able to recover even one penny of the amounts it paid to GC Strategies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Peterborough for her speech. It is mind-boggling to hear the Liberals claiming that they are a new government with a new vision and a new management approach. All of a sudden, they see the merit of properly managing public funds. Let us consider, for example, the CBSA assessment and revenue management system, or CARM, the Phoenix pay system and the long-gun registry, or we can go back even further to the sponsorship scandal. In each of those situations, the Liberals said that they truly acknowledged the situation, that they would do better and that they would be more rigorous, but there is no evidence to show that such is the case.”
“That is why we are doing this work today, to bring back to the fore the scandals that are unacceptable and attributable to the mismanagement of this government, which is the same government as before. There is no denying it. Their leader may have changed, but they are still the same Liberal government. Does my colleague think that the measures the government has put in place could provide a framework for the management of public contracts? Does he seriously think that we are going to buy the idea that these measures are enough to make us feel comfortable and secure with how public funds are managed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I noted something interesting in the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He said that he never once heard his constituents talk to him about GC Strategies during the election campaign. I understand that because, throughout the election campaign, the Liberals lulled everyone to sleep with fear of Donald Trump and tariffs. They fed that fear so well that there was no room to talk about anything else. There was no longer any room or interest in raising the many ways this outgoing government had proved to be incompetent. This honeymoon, this sort of bubble that the Liberals have thrust Canadians and Quebeckers into, is still going strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. What does my colleague think are the chances that we will ever see that money again? The other point that I would like to go back to is the penalty imposed on GC Strategies. It has been banned from all public contracts for seven years. This seems like a slap on the wrist. They are being told not to do it again because what they did was not nice. Does my colleague not think that Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony should have been banned for life, so that they will never again be able to work using public funds? Does she not think that this punishment would have fitted the crime?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is something sweet about the candour shown by the new Liberal member, who is convinced that this new government will better manage public funds. The creation of the agency my colleague was talking about is a bit like if Don Vito Corleone launched an investigation into the mafia. It is a bit surreal. There is also something important in my colleague's remarks, and I will ask him a pretty simple question. He says that GC Strategies was suspended from all public contracting for seven years. Personally, I think they should have been banned for life. Who is banned from receiving public contracts? Is it GC Strategies, or Mr. Firth and Mr. Anthony?”
“Certainly, we want to call for the money wasted in these scandals to be recovered, but should we not start by reviewing the rules governing public contracts? That is what I find troubling, the lack of accountability. What rules can be put in place to ensure that this does not happen again? History will continue to repeat itself because nothing is being done to fix this problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague on his speech, which gets the day off to a good start on a motion that the Bloc Québécois intends to support, albeit with some reservations. It is a bit unrealistic to think that the money wasted in the GC Strategies scandal will be able to be recovered. I will go back in history because these scandals are piling up. There was the sponsorship scandal, in which only about $8 million was recovered out of the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by the Liberal government of the day. Then there was the WE scandal, which was a gross mismanagement of public funds. Now we are faced with another scandal of the same kind, the GC Strategies scandal.”
“Madam Speaker, I would say it is because of the fear that was carefully stoked throughout the election campaign for political reasons. That fear was stoked by a team that wanted to win the election and who knew full well that seniors and the most vulnerable members of our society would be afraid...”
“Madam Speaker, I do not know where to begin. That is such a patchwork of nonsense that it is fascinating. The member for Winnipeg North knows full well that these rebates were sent out at the beginning of each quarter. It was not money that had already been spent, but money in anticipation of the expenses that would be incurred due to the carbon tax, and he knows that very well. Seniors in Quebec are also struggling to make ends meet. As long as the Liberals are engaging in vote-seeking ploys like this and sending cheques to everyone, why not also include Quebec's seniors, since my colleague seems so concerned about them? Seriously, the Liberals need to stop spouting nonsense and start telling the truth. That money was paid for in large part from Quebeckers' taxes, not from the carbon tax that was charged before April 1.”
“Even the OECD denounced the government's decision. Their lack of credibility is now blatant. It is literally the Liberals' fault. To fix their credibility problem, they are going to have to implement concrete measures to fight climate change for real.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford, and I look forward to hearing her speech in a few minutes. I, too, was surprised by this stunt, and I recognized it as one at the time. I even told the people around me that the Liberals were doing this to cut the ground from under the Conservatives. However, I thought they would come back with something else, since it is not in the Liberals' nature to not at least pretend to be active in the fight against climate change. That did not happen. As I was saying at the end of my speech, here we are after the election, which the Liberals probably won partly because of this election ploy, and we see them promoting pipeline investment projects that rely on ignoring environmental assessments and provincial and Quebec requirements. It makes no sense.”
“The challenge against Bill 21 at the Supreme Court of Canada has already racked up $1 million in costs in just a few months, and there is no transparency on that. I think we have earned the right to feel fed up and to demand respect. We are asking that Quebeckers be reimbursed $814 million, which corresponds to their contribution to the amount paid to the rest of Canada for the phoney carbon tax rebate. It is a motion for fairness and respect that makes a lot of sense, and I do not understand why my colleagues in the other parties do not support it. That is the least we owe to the Quebeckers who elected us.”
“The Liberals do not care about the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the BAPE, or about environmental requirements. They will shove these pipelines down our throats if they have to. Within six months, we saw a stunning change of course. From an environmental standpoint, the Liberals have turned into Conservatives. I am looking at members on each side of the House, and I do not know which party I am looking at. The motion we are moving today is quite straightforward. It is a motion for fairness and respect that will also ensure that Quebeckers are no longer taken for a ride. We want to know where the money is coming from, we want a budget, but we have not been given answers. Billions of dollars in tax cuts are being announced, but we do not know where that is going to come from.”
“I thought that it was very savvy of the Liberals to say they would eliminate the carbon tax and that they were going to win the election, since they had stripped Pierre Poilievre of his only argument. I thought that, after the election, they would announce another massive action plan to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but no. After the election, they talked about building oil pipelines from one end of the country to the other. It was not merely an election strategy. They really were reneging on their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Within six months, all of the fundamental values that Quebeckers hold dear have been swept aside. The fight against climate change is no longer a priority. Money is what matters most. There is money to be made transporting oil from one end of Canada to the other.”
“There is a good reason why the OECD condemned the decision to eliminate the carbon tax. We must admit that this was a politically savvy election-time decision, because it cut the ground from under Pierre Poilievre, who had spent months making the carbon tax his number one issue. Thanks to lies and repeated slogans, the public came to believe that the carbon tax was bad for their budgets and that it was basically the root of all evil. There were claims that food banks were swamped and that requests for MAID had shot up because of the carbon tax. That is how far people went in the 44th Parliament. That is quite the feat. The other great feat is the government's ability to renege on its climate action commitments. That came as a real shock to me.”
“Since this is my maiden speech in this Parliament, Madam Speaker, I would like to pause for a moment and tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Shefford . I would like to point out a few things about this rebate business. The first is that, by repeating a slogan based on falsehoods probably spread by the oil companies themselves, certain people succeeded in making Canadians believe that the carbon tax was eating into their purchasing power and costing them dearly. In reality, deep down inside, the Conservative members knew perfectly well that 80% of households outside Quebec and British Columbia that were subject to the carbon tax were receiving more money from the rebate than they were paying. They were benefiting from the system.”
“The carbon tax had already been abolished, as of April 1. In short, money was used during the election campaign for false reasons, literally. Who was left out of all this? As today's Bloc Québécois motion says, those who were left out were Quebeckers and British Columbians, who had acted responsibly by joining the carbon exchange with California, Washington State and soon Oregon. To call a spade a spade, this fictitious rebate was nothing more than an election giveaway. (1145) Anyone with a modicum of decency, ethical integrity and respect would look favourably on the request we are making today, which is to compensate Quebeckers fairly for the election giveaway they helped fund through their taxes. After all, we are talking about an estimated contribution of $814 million. That is not just pocket change.”
“Once again, I am very privileged to be able to count on such fantastic, dedicated, committed, competent and delightful women. I am truly surrounded by exceptional people. I would also like to acknowledge Rémi, the newest member of my Parliament Hill team. He has run for the Bloc Québécois twice and is a full-fledged member of the Bloc team in his own right. I am very proud to have him with us. As I said earlier, I am very pleased to speak to this Bloc Québécois motion. We were looking forward to this opposition day. I want to highlight some of the key points in the saga of this rebate for a carbon tax that had already been abolished. To make a long story short, government funds were used to send out rebates and refunds for something that was supposed to be paid later. However, the quarter covered by the April 22 rebate did not exist.”
“Frankly, I could not be prouder of these two volunteers, my parents, Henriette and Louis. I want to emphasize how fantastic they are. I am convinced that they will still be there in the next election. They are truly exceptional people. They deserve a statue. I am working on that. I also want to acknowledge and recognize the unwavering support of my immediate family, my wife Caroline, our children Tom, Lily-Rose, Alexandrine and Christophe. Frankly, without them, without their understanding of what an election campaign is and what the life of a member of Parliament entails, I would not be able to do this job. I think that everyone in the House would agree. Last but not least, I want to salute my outstanding team in Drummond. Andrée-Anne, Isabelle and Marlène have been providing impeccable service to the people of my riding for years.”
“We do it at the beginning of every Parliament, when we should be doing it almost on a weekly basis, so I want to thank all those people who have been truly essential, exceptional and who have maintained a fantastic morale, which gave me great sustenance throughout the campaign. I especially want to thank two volunteers who are, in my opinion, extraordinary. Perhaps members will understand my bias here. They are my parents. My parents are 85 years old. During election campaigns, they complain that they are not given enough work. My father complains, at 85, that I do not give him enough areas to cover to go and meet people. My mother complains that we do not give her long enough lists for phone canvassing. They come knocking on the door early in the morning. They are the last to leave.”
“We already knew that, yet volunteers of all ages—young, old, not so young, older and those who have been young longer than others—got together and came together to lend a hand and run a campaign that was extraordinary in many ways. I want to thank those volunteers sincerely. We all do it here in the House. I know we are all very grateful for the work that is being done in our respective ridings. However, the work of our supporters is essential. It allows us to be in direct contact with our people as well, to hear their concerns and to know how to align our positions. I do not think we thank them enough.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak for the first time in this new Parliament on a subject that I find extremely relevant. Before I begin, like many of my colleagues, I would like to say a few words of personal thanks, and look back at the spring election campaign, which was not without its challenges, emotions and hardships. I want to send a heartfelt and very sincere thank you to a wonderful team of volunteers. The Bloc Québécois gang in Drummond was absolutely fantastic. We almost had to turn people away at the door. We had so many volunteers and so many people willing take part in the campaign, which was not going to be easy from the outset.”
“Canadians outside Quebec who were subject to the carbon tax received one last cheque. Ninety per cent of the revenue from that tax was remitted. As a result, 80% of households benefited from this rebate compared to what they were paying in carbon pricing. My colleague knows that very well. This is all well and good because they received one last cheque that was completely unjustified during the election campaign, but in the coming months, they will no longer receive any of those cheques. How will my colleague explain to people outside Quebec that they are no longer entitled to this compensation and that, by the same token—”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière mentioned at the beginning of his speech the hardships he had to overcome during the election campaign. These are personal hardships that have touched all of us as colleagues. He is someone we appreciate very much and I think that we cannot remain insensitive to what he has been through. Our thoughts were with him and they are with him again today. To come back to his speech, however, I must acknowledge my colleague's talent as an actor. He knows very well that his reading of the carbon exchange and the carbon tax in the rest of Canada is false, but he makes a speech giving the impression that all this is true when he knows full well that it is not. In short, he is an excellent actor to whom I would certainly give an Oscar, but we are not there yet.”
“I understand the objective and I agree with it. However, how does my colleague intend to respond to the concerns of citizens who will be surprised by the fact that the government wants to open their mail and monitor their parcels? I get the feeling that there will be an outcry at some point. I would like to know whether the Liberals are anticipating such an outcry. How are they going to respond to it, and how are they going to reassure people in that regard?”
“Madam Speaker, I do not think I have had a chance to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier, I am happy to see you again. You are my favourite too, so it is good to see you again. I was also pleased to hear our new colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche say that he will support Bill C‑2 . I am glad to hear that. However, I would add that, since this is a government bill, I would imagine that he does not really have a choice in the matter. That said, I appreciated his passion, and I congratulate him on his speech, but there is something in the bill that concerns me. I am talking about respect for privacy and people's information. The bill proposes allowing Canada Post, among other entities, to inspect mail and packages sent to citizens.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. It is always very nice to hear colleagues express themselves so clearly and fluently in French. I would also like to congratulate her on her re-election. There are several items on the agenda. This morning, we debated, and are still debating, the Bloc Québécois amendment to the Conservatives' amendment to the Speech from the Throne. Our amendment is quite simple. It simply asks that the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces be respected. I have not yet heard a formal commitment to respecting the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I would like to know if my colleague can reassure me on this point.”
“My colleague mentioned microbreweries, but I want to remind him that there are two iconic companies in his riding that he did not name: La Grange Pardue and Fromagerie du Presbytère. I want to recognize Jean Morin, an amazing man making amazing products. I invite my colleague to check them out. Maybe he will return the favour someday and promote products from Drummond. Getting back to supply management, I would like to hear him clearly state that the Conservatives will indeed vote in favour of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate you on your appointment. You are doing a superb job in that chair, except maybe for that little slap on the wrist for the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who named one of his colleagues in the House. However, he will get used to it now that he is in the House. I think he will become a seasoned parliamentarian, coming off nine years at the Quebec National Assembly. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska is my riding neighbour. Evidently, he was not my preferred candidate in the race. I want to acknowledge my friend Daniel Lebel, who ran a great campaign in Richmond—Arthabaska. However, the voice of the people and democracy have spoken. I welcome this new colleague, but we will not be carpooling despite living so close to each other, because we have very different political opinions.”
“He talked about the Alberta independence movement stemming from Albertans' dissatisfaction on a number of fronts. It is not for me to judge whether that feeling is justified. However, it got me wondering. The independence movement has existed in Quebec for decades, but it has not always been treated with the respect we think it deserved over the years. As Alberta begins to consider independence, is it not time to have a serious discussion about the future of this country? Perhaps the various regions of Canada should reflect on the best way of tackling the future and its challenges. For our part, we believe that Quebec should be an independent nation. We have been saying that for a long time. What is happening in Alberta leads me to believe that all of Canada should be involved in this process of reflection.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating you and telling you how relieved I am that you are in the chair. You are a diligent member of Parliament and a formidable opponent when asking or answering questions as a member. I am glad to see you in the chair because it will save us from having to go up against you as a colleague and adversary. I also want to congratulate the new member for Bow River. I was very fond of his predecessor, my good friend Mr. Shields. I would ask my colleague to pass on my best regards at the earliest opportunity. It was a pleasure serving with him, particularly when it came to heritage matters. Mr. Shields and I both sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I really appreciated him as a colleague. I listened to the speech by my new colleague from Bow River.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on the same point of order. However, there is something that everyone needs to be reminded of, and I am certain it is your duty to remind them. It has to do with the interpreters' safety. My colleague may not realize she is banging very loudly on the desk close to the microphones. This is dangerous for the interpreters, who have to wear headphones to do their work. I would simply like to remind everyone that the microphones are very visible and that we must be careful not to handle objects or bang on the desks.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to this point of order, I agree that we want to give new members a chance to be heard and to finish their speeches. However, there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege. When a member asks a question, he or she can expect to receive an answer. I have no problem with the member making a speech, and she will have an opportunity to come back to it another time, but now is the time for questions and comments, and a question deserves an answer. The official opposition should not mimic the government's usual approach, but should instead answer the questions asked by members during the questions and comments period.”
“Does her party support the idea that the federal government must categorically and unconditionally respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at all times?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my newly elected colleague on her first speech in the House. I remember mine as a very moving experience. When I rose for the first time, I also remember thanking my family members, being overcome with emotion and having tears in my eyes. I have a very good idea of the emotions my colleague is feeling right now. We are currently debating a Bloc Québécois amendment to the amendment. It is an amendment to the Conservative Party amendment. The amendment to the amendment is very simple. All it does is insist that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces be respected. I would like my colleague to comment on that, if she has finished what was left of her speech.”
“The bill is roughly the same as the one that was supported by all the parties when we tabled it during the 44th Parliament. Will the Prime Minister promise today, as he did during the election campaign, that the Liberal Party and his government will support the bill introduced this morning by my colleague and leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being elected Speaker. I wish you every success during this Parliament. I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister for surviving his baptism by fire, his first question period and his maiden speech today. We do not mind saying that he did well. However, a number of questions remain unanswered. One specific question of mine concerns farmers in Quebec and Canada who operate under supply management. This morning, my colleague and leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly , tabled a bill similar to the one that we introduced in the previous Parliament to protect supply management from any concessions made in future trade negotiations with foreign countries and partners.”